Join Bridge Winners
All comments by David Levin
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If East has AQx Q Qxxxx QJxx and sees Partner raise to 3, I'm not sure what's wrong with bidding 3N.
Nov. 30, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Peter,
I don't think it undermines your point, but 4 x 159.18 is not under 600. Did you mean 149.18?
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Such an agreement might confound filling out the part of the ACBL convention card that indicates whether over opponent's takeout double, Responder's new suit is forcing at the one-level and at the two-level.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
East's hand does meet John Adams's Rule of 22 (cards outside Opener's suit + HCP), assuming that I don't have the context wrong.
Nov. 29, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I could understand East's being reluctant to bid 4 (over 3) if the pair's agreement was that 2/1 is forcing to 3N or 4m. But I think this agreement should include exceptions, or maybe the exceptions should be where you can stop in 4m.
Nov. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Great article.

Page 2, Sarah, last paragraph, “initiatedoptional” -> “initiated optional”.

Page 3, move “Kathy Jasper” up two places.
Nov. 28, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Added: I meant, "The first two cases where only rising brought +50".
Nov. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Not by two votes? (16-9 is 64%.)
Nov. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
To compare ducking against rising (at Trick 1) when Declarer was dealt five clubs, I ran the following layouts at Bridge Solver (https://mirgo2.co.uk/bridgesolver). One asterisk indicates where one defense was better but still allowed a make. Double asterisk indicates where only one defense set.

Chg | Duck | Rise | Declarer's Hand
* | -130 | -110 | K5 A A9752 K9752
* | -110 | -90 | K5 A KJ752 K9752
| -110 | -110 | K5 Q A9752 K9752
** | -90 | +50 | K5 Q KJ752 K9752
| -90 | -90 | 75 A AQ752 K9752
| +50 | +50 | 75 A KJ752 K9752
** | -90 | +50 | 75 Q AQ752 K9752
| -110 | -110 | K A5 A9752 K9752
| -90 | -90 | K A5 KJ752 K9752
* | -110 | -90 | K Q5 A9752 K9752
** | -90 | +50 | K Q5 KJ752 K9752
| -110 | -110 | 7 A5 AQ752 K9752
| -90 | -90 | 7 A5 KJ752 K9752
| -90 | -90 | 7 Q5 AQ752 K9752
* | -110 | -90 | A85 A9752 K9752
| -90 | -90 | A85 KJ752 K9752
** | -90 | +50 | Q85 AQ752 K9752
The first two cases where rising brought +50 should be disregarded because West presumably would have overcalled 1 (with 107 A8753 AQ963 4 and K10 A8753 KJ963 4, respectively).

In the remaining 15 cases, rising would have gained, albeit by an average of only 0.8 IMP/board. But the above sampling did not attempt to accurately reflect the likelihood of various layouts.

Layouts where Declarer was dealt four clubs should of course be examined also.

This deal would seem suitable for a simulation.

[Edited after I realized that font could not be conveniently specified within a “code”-“/code” pair.]
Nov. 27, 2019
David Levin edited this comment Nov. 27, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ah, I hadn't realized that. Thanks for clarifying.
Nov. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
It feels intuitive to me also, but further analysis persuaded me otherwise. Maybe yours is right, though. 8^)
Nov. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Steve, “people are bracketed at the start” of what? The “tanking” I was referring to would be of a late-round match in the day-one swiss.

Chris, I might have shared your confidence if I hadn't read the comments on this page.
Nov. 26, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Maybe the discussion-starter wasn't clear. I meant a team that does not want to play in the top bracket on day two but is at risk of qualifying for it owing to its unexpectedly good score going into the last round of the swiss on day one.
Nov. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Perhaps Truscott believed that the GB players had a higher percentage of the mental equivalent of slow-twitch muscle fibers than did the US players.
Nov. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In formats where a first-day swiss is used to bracket teams for the second-day knockout, has anyone witnessed the variant of sportsmanlike dumping in which a team tanks in the last round of day one rather than risk qualifying for the top bracket in the knockout?
Nov. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If Declarer has four clubs, then the decision seems fairly close.

But when Declarer has five clubs, ducking at Trick 1 can virtually never gain but would still often be worse. This seems to make rising at Trick 1 the clear favorite.
Nov. 25, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
From page 7:

“Picture West holding something like KQJ10xx, K10x, x, AJx. You cash dummy's jack of diamonds, and lead a club to your 9 and his jack. He cashes his spade trick, but then what does he do?

”If your hand is:

xx QJx AQx Q109xx, a third round of spades gives you the contract. You ruff in dummy, pitch a heart from your hand, cross to your hand with a trump to take a heart finesse, and eventually ruff the third round of hearts and set up dummy's long heart. Both a club shift and a heart shift would succeed.”

If West shifted to a heart, would it be wrong for Declarer to try Dummy's nine?
Nov. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Page 13, “North shoudn't have” -> “North shouldn't have”.
Nov. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Did they self-identify as experts? 8^)
Nov. 24, 2019
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Your first paragraph prompts a question for Steve M.: were these opponents unknown to you?

Added: I meant Steve Myerson rather than Steve Moese. I wouldn't object to the latter's answering, but his knowing the opponents probably wouldn't have helped the former in defending.
Nov. 23, 2019
David Levin edited this comment Nov. 23, 2019
.

Bottom Home Top